Text 1806, 67 rader
Skriven 2012-03-14 08:40:55 av Lars Erdmann
Ärende: Re: [New] XWorkplace v1.0.9
===================================
DXC=a:FXf]18=K`_0Po7BmQ3]lA9EHlD;3Ycb4Fo<]lROoRa8kF<OcfhCOkc8^M=i>edZg^CT1A^BL@[ng`]oWbiRbFjA^@@NGgabKjEj_5VM1QH<f

comp.os.os2.ecomstation:1239 comp.os.os2.apps:2487
From: "Lars Erdmann" <lars.erdmann@arcor.de>

Maybe it's a problem with the underlying subsystem (filesystem, drivers).
What is drive G: on your system ? A partition on a USB stick ? A network 
drive ?
Are you using the AHCI driver for harddisk access ?
I would rather look into this. And I would try to do the copy from the 
commandline.
If it works ok from a commandline you can then look into any GUI issues.

Lars

"Dariusz Piatkowski" <dariusz@_NO-SPAM_mnsi.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:Qg5I6Bo2seGy-pn2-Q9dZVdfjlqCh@neurobox...
> Hi Rich, Paul & the update team!
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:41:21 UTC, "Rich Walsh" <spamyourself@127.0.0.1> 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm pleased to announce the release of XWP v1.0.9.  It contains over
>> 30 bugfixes and enhancements from Paul Ratcliffe, myself, and others.
>> Special thanks go to Mensys for sponsoring some of these improvements.
>
> ...
>
> Thanks so much for the update...the Split View missing '+' was annoying me 
> quite
> a bit...strangely enough, the SMP configuration had a lot to do with 
> it...since
> booting in a uni-processor configuration allowed the old version to work
> correctly. Long story short, it now works no matter what!!!!
>
> Anyways...I'm curious: is anyone reporting any problems with the file 
> 'copy'
> functionality?
>
> I'm having major problems attempting to copy files, especially the EXE
> types...basically, even though the replacement dialog pops up and asks me 
> to
> confirm (which I select, as opposed to a re-name operation) the EXE never
> actully gets copied over. The process fails even if the TARGET directory 
> is
> completely empty...for each EXE file I get a pop-up msg box telling me 
> that
> '...Drive G: is currently in use...', even though nothing that I can see 
> has
> access to the non-existing EXE file.
>
> In addition to this, for other file types, the copies stuff gets the
> latest&greatest date/time-stamp, as opposed to retaining the original 
> file's
> date/time stamp.
>
> I am thinking it's best to file a ticket...but I was curious if anyone 
> else
> reported seeing this?
>
> Thanks! 


--- Internet Rex 2.31
 * Origin: Arcor (1:261/20.999)